The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Also worth pointing out -

 

When the shoot comes to the door and the teacher fires a round, the teacher might not need to hit the shooter. That might be all that's needed for the shooter to move on.

 

Moving on might mean the next class, it might mean away from the school. Every situation will be different.

 

There's a group of home defense gun owners that believe a shotgun is the best weapon, not because it's the easies to use inside or to aim, but because when you rack the shotgun everyone knows what that is and that's likely enough to make an intruder retreat.

 

It's not a guarantee but, generally speaking, most people don't like bullets being shot at them.

 

The teacher doesn't need to kill the guy on the first shot for the idea to be effective.

 

I can get with all of this, actually. If we are strictly talking about not engaging the shooter and just trying to keep them out I can see the value there. I would prefer not to have to take that route but it sounds effective. 

 

My nightmare is a teacher trying to engage with a shooter and all hell breaking lose. 

[Destino]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/?utm_source=fbb

 

 

More at link

 

The gist.  AR-15 kills more people than handguns by function.

It would have helped if the instead of saying "bullet from an AR-15" the writer specified the bullet.  AR-15s can fire a variety of different bullets.  Despite that, the sort of soft tissue damage caused by different ammunition is a an important side of things to consider.  Bullets and gun shots are not all the same.  Some are much more deadly than others, and some are more dangerous than others in different environments.   

[PeterMP]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

They could just gun people down between classes

 

That's always going to be a hard nut to crack from a defense stand point.  Good doors would at least allow some of them to run into classrooms and lock doors.

 

The FL guy attacked as school was letting out.  Not much you can ever do there once the person has the gun.

 

That's where better gun control laws are absolutely needed.  Once you have motivated reasoning person that wants to kill lots of people, you are always going to have problems.

[twa]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Reasonable is as relative as it comes.

And a log of people get sued, it doesn’t mean they win. When you go into a business that forbids you to carry a gun then you set your right aside willingly. If you don’t want to set aside your right then don’t go in.

You guys want bakers to choose how they run their shops but you want to force a shop owner to sllow you to carry a firearm in their store.

Freedom right? Oh but not for you.

 

You want to force bakers to do what they do not want to do, I allow a business to forbid guns....my way is freedom.

 

Your forbidding me a gun endangers me(if there is a real danger), them not baking a certain cake in no way endangers you

 

different laws,different situations....and people most certainly do win suits over negligence and lack of security all the time.

 

While we are on the subject....many are claiming the mere presence of a gun brings with it risk and danger(I concur)

 

WHY do you not claim the same about illegal aliens?

Murders, rapes and many other crimes are committed by them(albeit a small percent)....allowing them endangers people.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I'm sorry. I just watched some of Wayne LaPierre's speech. I can't take this **** anymore.

[Llevron]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

i can't imagine that would be cheaper.

 

I dunno. Im trying to outfit our new office with "security glass" which is basically bulletproof glass with a shatter proof film and its not nearly as expensive as I thought it would be. But I have no idea how much we would be talking here. Thats different than blast doors though. 

 

But again - could create jobs? Dunno. Spit balling here. 

 

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

i like it as a better solution, because locking a door is inherently less dangerous that introducing a gun into an environment.

 

i believe around here they installed those in junction points. so they can lock down wings of the school

 

which i mean, it sucks if your kid is in the wing with the shooter but... i mean, the whole thing sucks so...

 

Thats thats actually a scary point. What happens if a kid gets locked out. Yikes. 

 

9 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

They could just gun people down between classes

 

Yea thats a nightmare scenario here. Class lets out or the fire alarm is pulled then what? 

 

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

For security reasons (so people can see what is happening in a class room from hallways and prevent in proper actions by teachers), class room doors have windows in them.

 

I guess you could go to bullet proof glass in them, but I'm pretty sure that's only bullet proof for so long so you'd be looking at changing it out every once in a while.

 

I would prefer changing the glass every so often then putting guns in the rooms. But do you mean that after time even without use they would degrade in effectiveness? That would be a whole other issue i hadnt thought about. 

 

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The other thought, I had was to go better doors w/o windows and cameras in the class room so the room could be monitored from the office and other rooms.

 

Yea see I do think there is a way to fix this with technology that would be expensive as **** but wouldnt take anyone's guns away. But issue here is time to implement, testing, and then keeping everything up to date. Oh and who runs it. I much MUCH prefer technology as a solution regardless of cost though. I actually dont think we have taken advantage of our love for tech enough in cases like this. 

[Springfield]

3 minutes ago, Destino said:

It would have helped if the instead of saying "bullet from an AR-15" the writer specified the bullet.  AR-15s can fire a variety of different bullets.  Despite that, the sort of soft tissue damage caused by different ammunition is a an important side of things to consider.  Bullets and gun shots are not all the same.  Some are much more deadly than others, and some are more dangerous than others in different environments.   

 

Well, I understand an AR15 can shoot any type of .223 round.  Is the velocity between an AR round and standard 9mm handgun or .45 handgun round drastically different?

[Llevron]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

That's where better gun control laws are absolutely needed.  Once you have motivated reasoning person that wants to kill lots of people, you are always going to have problems.

 

I said this before its alot like hacking you will never be able to 100% prevent something if someone really wants to do it. 

 

I would like you to help me explore some tech ideas on this. I dont know where to start. 

[PeterMP]

6 minutes ago, Llevron said:

My nightmare is a teacher trying to engage with a shooter and all hell breaking lose. 

 

Nobody (here) was ever talking about teachers engaging shooters.  It has always been about finding a safe place and defending.

 

 

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

Nobody (here) was ever talking about teachers engaging shooters.  It has always been about finding a safe place and defending.

 

 

 

Yea im hip that yall never said it but i am worried about it happening regardless. 

[PeterMP]

4 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I would prefer changing the glass every so often then putting guns in the rooms. But do you mean that after time even without use they would degrade in effectiveness? That would be a whole other issue i hadnt thought about. 

 

Over time the effectiveness of bullet proof glass degrades even if it isn't being shot.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletproof_glass

 

"The properties of bullet-resistant glass can be affected by temperature and by exposure to solvents or UV radiation, usually from sunlight. If the polycarbonate layer is below a glass layer, it has some protection from UV radiation due to the glass and bonding layer. Over time the polycarbonate becomes more brittle because it is an amorphous polymer (which is necessary for it to be transparent) that moves toward thermodynamic equilibrium."

[Llevron]

did not know that. Damn. That pretty much kills my idea. You cant rely on something that will degrade. Especially when peoples lives are on the line. Damn. 

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Well, I understand an AR15 can shoot any type of .223 round.  Is the velocity between an AR round and standard 9mm handgun or .45 handgun round drastically different?

velocity, i believe, is more a function of the grain rating and the bullet size. each size comes with different grain ratings. i can't shoot low grain 9mm out of one gun because it jams, i have to get higher grain count in order for it to function properly (ie: not use cheap ammo)

 

you can get super into the weeds on caliber and grain and how it affects trajectory, velocity, etc. honestly, i'm stepping out of my element a bit with the little i'm discussing.

 

the length of the barrel, the ratio of twists per inch of the threading all play a role, but i believe the size of the bullet and the grain count are the primary factors.

 

AR15 are commonly sold as, and marketed as, being chambered for 223/5.56 NATO rounds because that's what most people want.

 

You can chamber them for pretty much any caliber though. Like a lot of guns.

 

Hell, the sig p239 will let you go from sub compact, to full, and from 25 acp to 45 acp; including 9, 40, 357... all in one gun you just buy a part and swap it. serial's on a piece that doesn't change so it's all "one gun"

 

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2018 by tshile

[DogofWar1]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

People are complaining that some teachers are crazy, why would we give them guns

People are complaining that teachers can't be counted on to secure the gun so some crazy kid doesn't get it, and make a problem worse because now the kid has a gun.

 

These are the same people talking about how we need background checks to rule out crazy and irresponsible people from buying guns.

 

The rest of your post is nonsense because it requires that you assume teachers are going to be heros. You can assume that, anyone can assume that, but not everyone is.

Seeing as there is no definitive standard as to what is too crazy to own a gun, I think there's a reasonable point that we should figure out a good one for background checks AND then apply it to teachers who will be carrying.  I can see it as hypocritical if we assume that background checks can currently weed out crazies (but willfully don't) and therefore we could just cross-apply it as opposed to blanket refusal to arm teachers, but frankly background checks can't do that yet.

 

As for securing, again, I think the public versus private difference comes into play.  While I do think proper security should be encouraged, maybe even mandated, it's not, and for most people that's fine.  If a single, well adjusted male wants to store it in the top cabinet in his kitchen or under his bed, fine, a gun safe probably isn't a requirement.  But teachers are operating in a public environment.  While I could see us bypassing the security issue if it's a purely opt-in process for a teacher, that does still run risks as it puts the burden of properly securing the firearm on the teacher.  Alternatively, if a more formal program is done, I think the burden falls on the school, and considering the funding implications of that, it's a very real area of concern.

 

And I do not assume teachers are being heroes.  I, like you, am assuming they shelter in place.  However, in an active shooter situation we must be prepared for the possibility the shooter will come to the place they are sheltering, which means they have to respond.  Maybe it's easy, like you mention with them firing a shot at the door and the shooter leaving.  Maybe it's not.  In either instance, it's important the teacher be calm and capable in a crisis.  That doesn't require them to be Rambo, but it does require them to be trained and presumably that training would have benchmarks of some sort.

[LD0506]

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Yea im hip that yall never said it but i am worried about it happening regardless. 

 

which is legitimate whether you're talking about a teacher in a school or random dude in a walmart when a shooting breaks out.

 

hell, if someone breaks into my house and i can get my family out without confronting them thats the #1 option.

#2 is to stay at the top of the stairs and just keep them from coming to the floor the bedrooms are on.

 

it doesn't matter because the odds of them breaking in are low and the odds of them doing it while we're home are even lower.

 

my point was i wouldn't want to run around my own house with a gun looking for someone... that's dumb. some random building full of strangers? hah!

2 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

As for securing, again, I think the public versus private difference comes into play.  While I do think proper security should be encouraged, maybe even mandated, it's not, and for most people that's fine. 

Uh... how is it not mandated?

 

People are absolutely held responsible when their kid shoots someone with a gun the left loaded and in the corner.

 

I guess it varies state to state, but here you're responsible for what happens to your gun...

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

17 minutes ago, Destino said:

It would have helped if the instead of saying "bullet from an AR-15" the writer specified the bullet.  AR-15s can fire a variety of different bullets.  Despite that, the sort of soft tissue damage caused by different ammunition is a an important side of things to consider.  Bullets and gun shots are not all the same.  Some are much more deadly than others, and some are more dangerous than others in different environments.   

There is so much that goes into the damage a gun does.  For example, was this person seeing many .45 or .357 mag hollow point wounds?  Because those just make a mess.  At that point, they were probably just going to the morgue.  Long gun rounds can come in many varieties also.  That is why varmit rounds and deer can be used with same gun.  Shape of the bullet also.  Dovetail rounds are nice because of the way the air flows behind them.  The AR style gun doesn't shoot 30-06 that I know of but you can damn near blow a body in half with one of those.  That article stuck me as someone trying to use their belief to justify the facts instead of the other way around.

12 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Well, I understand an AR15 can shoot any type of .223 round.  Is the velocity between an AR round and standard 9mm handgun or .45 handgun round drastically different?

tshile already explained it but yea, in general rifles have a higher velocity.  Hence the larger shell casing with a smaller projectile.  There are also "AR-style" guns that shoot different calibers.  For example what is commonly called the AR-10 shoots 7.62 (or .308). 

[tshile]

23 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Well, I understand an AR15 can shoot any type of .223 round.  Is the velocity between an AR round and standard 9mm handgun or .45 handgun round drastically different?

i got carried away and forgot the actual question.

 

yes, they are different. vary different. hell, just rifle calibers are different from each other. 

 

non gun owners always balk about someone who has a lot of guns. the truth is they all have different purposes. i wouldn't hunt rabbit with a 7mm but i would hunt elk/moose with it.

 

a .45 ACP (handgun) round, for example, is a slow moving, big bullet. this tends to cause great damage than a 9mm that moves faster (and is smaller)

Edited February 22, 2018 by tshile

[Destino]

31 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Well, I understand an AR15 can shoot any type of .223 round.  Is the velocity between an AR round and standard 9mm handgun or .45 handgun round drastically different?

There are a lot of variables present in "AR15" and ".223".  There is an actual AR-15 and then there is the "AR15 Style Rifle" which covers a wide range of similar rifles that are often reported as in the media as simply "AR-15".  Sandy Hook shooter used a Bushmaster XM-15.  The Orlando Club shooter had a SIG Sauer MCX.  The guy in Vegas apparently had more rifles than I care to list. 

 

The possible calibers for various "AR15 Style Rifles" is a long list, but even if you narrow it down to .223 that doesn't mean they're all the same.  There are different weights and muzzle velocities depending on which specific .223 ammo is chosen. 

 

[tshile]

24 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

  In either instance, it's important the teacher be calm and capable in a crisis.  That doesn't require them to be Rambo, but it does require them to be trained and presumably that training would have benchmarks of some sort.

 

You are not going to be able to put someone through the amount of training required that they be "calm and capable" when an active shooter walks into the room, much less an entire group of hundreds of thousands of teachers.

 

Police aren't calm when they shoot people. They spend time in therapy afterwards. They often aren't capable either. They're told to fire until the threat stops, and that often means 20+ bullets being fired at a single target at close range.

 

You need them to be competent in securing their gun at all times, understanding the policy and procedure.

 

And then you hope when the time comes they do their best, and their best is good enough.

 

Anything else is being ridiculous.

 

edit: I'm not saying they shouldn't be trained. i'm just saying the standards some of you are setting are ridiculous. it's never going to happen. it's unreasonable. the teacher is going to **** their pants when someone walks into the room with an ar-15 after hearing shots from down the hall. you need to hope they just manage the point the gun in the right direction and pull the trigger in a timely manner.

Edited February 22, 2018 by tshile

[Burgold]

^^^

I think Tshile just explained a major reason why I don’t think teachers should be armed. 

[tshile]

Just now, Burgold said:

^^^

I think Tshile just explained a major reason why I don’t think teachers should be armed. 

 

I don't want teachers armed either.

for other reasons.

 

but 10 minutes is a long time for someone to walk around with a ar-15 (or any other number of guns) in a school full of people who can't do anything except sit in a corner and cry.

 

[Springfield]

So then why not ban ammunition rounds and weapons that exceed a specific speed, or something to that effect?

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, Springfield said:

So then why not ban ammunition rounds and weapons that exceed a specific speed, or something to that effect?

Because they have legit uses for speed and such.  Higher velocity in general equals higher accuracy and range.  Useful for hunting bigger game.  Hollow points are designed to cause extreme damage.  That is why they are self-defense rounds.  But they are also much better at not penetrating through, either the target or the wall if you miss.  So they are safer for things like home use.

[Springfield]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Because they have legit uses for speed and such.  Higher velocity in general equals higher accuracy and range.  Useful for hunting bigger game.  Hollow points are designed to cause extreme damage.  That is why they are self-defense rounds.  But they are also much better at not penetrating through, either the target or the wall if you miss.  So they are safer for things like home use.

 

But what use is a bear that is shot with a round that leaves the animal unrecognizable?  (Semi sarcastic)

 

I keep thinking back to guns like tommy sub machine guns.  As I understand, the government limited access to weapons by category.  Much like a fully auto sub machine gun, there isn’t much use for an AR or AR style rifle for private citizen use, to me.  How to keep them out of citizens hands without effecting other weapons is a point of contention.